"There's a certain mad nobility in the way Boris's opponents seem determined to strap themselves to the most unpopular causes going. You wonder what's next a support group for double-glazing salesmen? A bid to rehabilitate that misunderstood feminist icon, demonised by the Right-wing media, Rose West?"

Now where have I heard that one before? Could it be from an 'anonymous' commenter a few weeks back:

"There's a certain mad nobility in this blog's obsessive support for the most unpopular vehicles in London. What's next - a campaign to rehabilitate Rose West?"

"The point the Gilligan piece was making is that the world has changed. It's not Boris or "Tory ultras" that will "abandon" the 50,000 new affordable homes target - it's the economy, and it's going to happen whether Dave Hill likes it or not"

"Nobody outside the ranks of Ken Livingstone supporters would accept your principal commentator, Dave Hill, as "independent". He has repeatedly attacked Johnson, found endless inventive ways to repeat the "racist" slur about him, done his very best to downplay the importance of the LDA grants scandal and made clear his delight at polls showing Ken closing the gap."

"Dave Hill's famously unbiased reporting has unfortunately omitted to mention the several callers who suggested that Ken was "bitter," that he should stop "slagging off Boris Johnson" and that his mayoralty had "lost its way." As for Ken's claim that Gilligan is obsessed with him, I counted about fifteen mentions of Gilligan. Who, exactly, is the obsessive one here?"

"Nor will it do to write off everyone who opposes Ken or New Labour as, by definition, a Daily Mail reactionary. If Polly had ever read any of Gilligan's columns, she would see someone writing from a broadly left-wing, if anti-New Labour, perspective"

Or a pro-New Conservative perspective? Or an anti-anti Boris Johnson one? Or a pro-sockpuppeting your critics vibe? Or an anti-responding under your own name slant? Which is it Andrew? Your public deserves to know!

Thursday, 23 October 2008

At a talk at the London School of Economics last Tuesday Tony Travers said of former mayor Ken Livingstone that 'love him or hate him he had a well developed narrative for the city.'

Asked what the new Mayor's narrative would be Sir Simon Milton replied that he had 'never come across a Conservative or Labour way of sweeping a street.'

It was a telling comment and over the course of his speech, Milton set out a plan for London government without an ideology, and of his vision for a city without a vision.

Now I'm not saying he didn't express any ideas. There was much talk of 'economic sub-hubs' and 'polycentric development' and a dozen other ways in which the rim of the donut might get a little extra jam.

But beyond this I got very little sense of how a Boris Johnson administration will significantly alter London.

It was as if they have been elected as street-sweepers and so it will be as street-sweepers that they will remain.

A New Broom

Asked what difference a Conservative government would make to his plans, he said that they would try and reduce the number of 'statutory strategies' that they were required to set: "it should be down to the Mayor to decide what the Mayor should do" he explained.

But listening to Milton, it was clear to me that he would be happy to 'decide to do' as little as possible to significantly alter the city at all.

Now there will be many who will be pleased to hear this.

If you listen to Tory Assembly members at Question Time you will barely hear a question which does not mention stripping back the GLA to the 'slimline' version of it (they) envisaged.

But the problem with this, is that if all you do with a street is to sweep it, then the street itself will quickly fall into disrepair.

And if you don't have any new ideas for that street, then there will be plenty of others who will have interests in sweeping in with some of their own.

"Mayor Johnson’s plans to bring in the new Routemaster-style bus will increase harmful emissions at a time when everyone else is trying to bring them down.

“Londoners must not become the victims of Boris’ obsession with meeting his pledge in time for the next election. The new hybrid or fuel-cell Routemaster is a great idea, but pollution must not get worse in the meantime."

London is currently under the threat of unlimited fines for it's poor air quality.

With that in mind Pidgeon suggests that phasing out bendy buses should be delayed until a more clean and efficient alternative is produced:

“If the Mayor is serious about climate change and reducing pollution, he’ll wait until his new hybrid or fuel-cell Routemaster is ready for service.

"Otherwise, we’ll either have more diesel fumes churned out, or not enough buses to meet demand, with packed buses sailing past commuters at bus stops.”

Tuesday, 21 October 2008

"The current work draws upon in-house expertise and poses no extra cost to the GLA. I am expecting a progress report shortly. If this recommends that further work is undertaken by outside specialists then this option will be fully costed."

In-house eh? I wonder what that involves. A quick visit to Simon Milton's office perhaps, or an even quicker phone call to David Cameron?

"Will the study being undertaken by GLA officers in to your proposal for an airport in the Thames Gateway consider the difficulties to construction that could be posed by the wreckage of liberty ship SS Richard Montgomery, which sank off the coast of Sheerness in 1944 carrying a cargo of explosives, around 1,500 tons of which are reportedly still on board the wreckage."

Ah yes, that old wreck. Surely Boris considered that before announcing his scheme? Didn't he?

"Thank you for highlighting this important issue. I will make sure that my officers consider the implications of this in their current evaluation of Thames Estuary airport options."

Phew, well done Jenny. That could have all got very messy there indeed.

Back in the early days of Boris's bendy revolution, mere facts were as nothing to the greater good of the bendy jihad. But as Boris takes on his new role as the arbiter of truth, these facts are becoming a little more difficult.

Take these written answers sent out to assembly members last night. Asked whether replacing bendy buses will be good value for money, he replied:

"Londoners elected me on a clear manifesto of ridding the capital’s streets of bendy buses, which due to their vast length that makes them so unsuitable for London’s roads.

I have made it very clear I believe that London needs a bus that is fit for the 21st century and that the bendy bus, the scourge of the capital’s cyclists, is not the solution."

Scourge eh? So how many have fallen to this scourge so far?

"I am informed that, thankfully, there have been no fatal accidents arising from collisions between cyclists and articulated buses in London since the introduction of articulated vehicles."

Okay, but surely there must have been many other serious collisions?

"Serious incidents are defined by TfL as those where a cyclist may have required treatment, including in hospital. There was one serious incident involving a cyclist in each of the years 2005/06 and 2006/07, and two in 2007/08."

So there has been just four incidents in three years?

"This does not weaken the case for their removal. The perception of safety is an important element in whether people decide to cycle or not.

The bottom line is bendy buses contribute to the perception that cycling is unsafe, and it is my intention to correct this perception in order to get more people cycling."

So we have established that they're not all that dangerous and that their value for money doesn't check out either.

But surely there must be some benefit to getting rid of them?

"It is important to point out, however, that the extra congestion caused by the bendy bus on some roads can have a significant environmental impact.

We know that congestion causes emissions to increase, and it is my hope that the removal of the bendy buses will contribute to a reduction in congestion which should, in turn, lead to a positive impact on emissions."

So by that logic, getting rid of bendies should actually decrease congestion on London's streets, no? How about the first routes to be debendified?

"TfL do not consider that the replacement of articulated buses on services 38, 507 and 521 will have an impact on congestion along these bus routes."

From an email exchange between one Londoner and the BNP's representative on the London Assembly Richard Branbrook:

Your Name: *****

Email: ********

Website: http://

Message: Hello Mr Barnbrook

In your article titled "Sir Ian Blair - the real reason" you assert that Jean Charles de Menezes was an illegal imigrant. For your information it was shown during the course of the criminal trial into the Health and Safety charge that Mr Menezes was lawfully in the country on 22 July 2005.

Mr. Barnbrook's reply:

From: specialprojects@bnp.org.uk

To: *********

Subject: RE: A comment from *****

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:26:01 +0100

And!!

Well I guess that clears that one up.

Have you been in contact with Richard Barnbrook? Have you been in touch with the berk in brown? Have you exercised your right to reply? If so then Tory Troll would really like to hear from you...

Tuesday, 14 October 2008

"When we look at our options, and you think of the lasting benefits of infrastructure investment, you can see that even in little old Britain we have some stunning opportunities, of a scale not seen for a generation.

"There is Crossrail, 75 miles of track finally providing a link between Heathrow and the City and a staggering 10 per cent increase in London's transport capacity. There are upgrades of the Tube, massive investments in track, signalling and air conditioning, vital to the future liveability of Europe's greatest city."

The likelihood of a pedestrian being killed when hit by a vehicle increases according to the speed of the vehicle. Research by the Department for Transport suggests that a pedestrian hit at 30mph has a 1 in 5 chance of dying; at 20mph the figure is 1 in 40.6

Financial implications

Reducing casualties also has the benefit of saving money. Estimates by the Department for Transport were that traffic incidents where a person was killed or seriously injured cost an average of £134,000. The average cost of a fatality is £1.19 million.

By contrast, it is estimated that the cost of setting up 'speed over time' cameras to police a borough-wide zone would be just £1 million.

The report also cites evidence that 20 mph zones improve the flow of traffic, which is purportedly one of Boris Johnson's main transport aims.

It also counters claims that the zones increase traffic speed elsewhere, and makes it clear that major thoroughfares would have to be excluded from the zones.

However, although 20 mph zones have been shown to significantly reduce casualties and costs, there is not thought to have been sufficient research into all of the effects of the establised 'blanket-zones.'

The proposed investigation would seek to fill in some of those gaps. The Transport Committee will discuss the proposal this Thursday.

Sunday, 12 October 2008

Their Assembly Member is known (to himself) as Richard the Lionheart, but the BNP entered even further into the realms of historical fantasy today with this Pyongyang-style summary of last week's plenary session:

"Tories, Labour, Lib-Dems, Greens and other Tweedle-Dee Tweedle-Dum parties on the Greater London Assembly were all shocked last week when the only GLA member to oppose their motion on granting amnesty to illegal immigrants was the BNP’s Richard Barnbrook."

Really?

"The leading Tory on the GLA, Richard Barnes, also attacked the BNP for daring to oppose the motion, but then in typical cowardly Tory style, abstained when the vote came. His fellow Tories did however vote in favour of the motion, and it was passed with only the BNP voting against it."

Saturday, 11 October 2008

From a hastily withdrawn blog post on Guy Fawkes blog of parliamentary plots, rumours and conspiracy:

You can't take the law into your own hands they say, but when the law fails to protect innocent children, many people including Guido, will say justice was done. Searching for the perpertrator of this crime is a waste of police time and taxpayer's money. Will the outcome of this trial be better justice?

Who knows? Will your next attempt to associate Gordon Brown with a child-killing pervert be any more successful, or funny?

Or was using the horrific death of somebody else's child, to score a laugh, too low for even you to stomach?-Update- Paul Staines says he is sweet and innocent.

Friday, 10 October 2008

The Liberal Democrats today warned Boris Johnson against implementing any of his 'half baked' alternatives to scrapping the Western extension of the Congestion Charge.

Their City Hall transport spokesperson Caroline Pidgeon said this morning:

"We support the idea of making the charge easier to pay in the Central Zone, but none of the other half-baked options suggested by Mayor Johnson are feasible."

“Boris Johnson must stick to his election pledge to scrap the western extension, and not play around with half measures.”

Among the alternatives put forward by the Mayor were that people living within the zone could be exempted from the charge and that a charge-free period could be introduced for the middle of the day.

The Liberal Democrats objections to keeping the extension are that:

"The 90% residents’ discount to the charge, given to a very large number of residents in the western zone, actually encouraged them to drive their cars into central London for a mere 80p per day. This was made worse by not allowing residents to pay for a single day but requiring them to “buy” a whole week, thus incentivising them to drive more.

"The choice of the Kensington and Chelsea area as an extension to the original scheme was arbitrary and based on the limitations of the existing technology. There were other areas within Greater London more in need of action against congestion.

"Consultations and opinion surveys made it clear that a majority of those living in the area in and around the Western extension were opposed to the proposal."

Today's intervention comes after Boris's own party urged him to scrap the extension and after his one-time cheerleader Andrew Gilligan labeled the decision his 'first big test'

However, with the news that the GLA group may lose up to £70 million pounds to a failed Icelandic bank and with big shortfalls in his budget still unaccounted for, the loss of the western extension revenue would be a bitter pill to take.

Increasing congestion in the capital at a time when London risks receiving unlimited fines for it's poor air quality would also not be well timed.

Nor would allowing more traffic into the West End, at the same time as Boris is actually increasing the amount of road space taken up by the city's buses.

Scrapping the extension would fulfill an election promise for sure and endear him to the hearts of all those who oppose the charge.

But at the same time does Boris really want to go down as the Mayor who reversed the shift of Londoners from cars to public transport just as times are getting tough?

This is a big test for Boris Johnson. How will he fare?-Update- Tower Hamlets consider own congestion zone.

"The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, today joined Metropolitan Police Commander Rod Jarman and Transport Commissioner Peter Hendy to announce the 30 locations across London that will benefit from new transport policing teams."

Excellent. So that's thirty extra teams of police in the capital. I guess I must have been a bit hasty with this question yesterday.

But hang on wasn't Boris asked about this at the last Mayor's Question Time? Oh yes:

"Transport policing

(1)Question No: 1604 / 2008

Jenny Jones

Following your announcement regarding the new London Underground policing teams, can you confirm whether this will involve new British Transport Police officers, or whether officers are being diverted from other duties?

The new London Underground Neighbourhood Policing Teams have been formed by realigning existing reassurance teams on the LU system to provide a greater focus on providing visible and local policing on the tube network.The teams were launched on 1 August and will be dedicated to the needs of each specific neighbourhood area, with the policing priorities for that area decided in partnership with passengers, local staff and the local community.

Transport policing (2)

Question No: 1605 / 2008

Jenny Jones

If officers are being diverted from other duties to police the Underground, why do you support this decision, given that the London Underground is a low crime environment and crime on the network has decreased significantly over the past year?

London Underground is a low crime environment but there is always more work to be done to maintain this. The London Underground Neighbourhood Policing Teams will provide an opportunity for officers to get to know their local communities and understand the important issues in their area. They will do this by working in partnership to identify local problems, as well as working to develop targeted solutions to tackling crime and the types of behaviour that make people feel unsafe. As stated in my answer to question 1604/2008 these teams have been formed by realigning existing reassurance officers already working on the Underground in order to make the best use of resources across the network.

Transport policing (3)

Question No: 1606 / 2008

Jenny Jones

Is the entire cost of the new London Underground policing teams being met by the British Transport Police?

The cost of the new teams will be covered by existing London Underground funding for British Transport Police."

So does that mean that there will be no new funding and no new police officers, or does today's announcement indicate that there will be genuinely more police out on the streets?

Because when you are claiming that crime has fallen because of these 'new teams' then shouldn't you make it clear whether or not those crime-fighters have been redeployed from fighting crime elsewhere?

"Kit Malthouse AM acknowledged the scale of reductions that will be necessary, telling us that he expected grants to remain ‘on the floor’ in future years, and confirmed to us that this would mean the Metropolitan Police Authority would be looking for ‘big ticket’ savings in 2010/11 and 2011/12.

There are no detailed efficiency proposals to support the MPA’s savings targets, and there is as yet no evidence to demonstrate that the targets are achievable through genuine efficiencies rather than service cuts."

Because for all the spin before the election about the GLA being 'mired in waste' the much-promised 'big ticket savings' have so far not been found.

For an example of this just think back to this promise made shortly after winning the election:

Boris Johnson, the new Mayor of London, is to slash advertising budgets for the Greater London Authority, including the Metropolitan Police and Transport for London, to pay for more police on the capital's streets.

Reiterating his manifesto promise, Johnson said that funding of £16.5m for an extra 440 police community support officers to patrol buses and Tube stations will come from cutting Transport for London's advertising budget.

The Mayor’s manifesto pledged to fund these officers by reducing the Metropolitan Police Service’s communications budget. However, this has not proved to be possible and the funding will now be provided by Transport for London.

And with Malthouse's promised 'big-ticket savings' still hiding in the wings, it remains to be seen just what cuts will now need to be brought out to the front line.

Anyone else remember this particular piece of spin published in the God's honest Daily Mail last month?

"Boris Johnson will offer David Cameron a possible blueprint for a future Tory Government when he announces plans for a huge cost-cutting drive."

Huge eh? You better live up to that billing now Boris. How much are we talking here?

"The capital's mayor will unveil details of a major restructuring of the Greater London Authority that will see spending cut by up to 15 per cent on a vow to 'do more for less'."

'More for less' eh? That's what we like here at the Troll - impossible promises.

"He says his overhaul will mean reductions of nearly £500 million in the mayor's £3.2 billion annual budget."

£500 million? Have they got that right? Maybe we should check the actual figures from the Mayor's budget guidance:

"For 2009-10 a reduction of 15 per cent in net revenue expenditure from the amount of £79.1 million (which excludes the contribution to the Olympic and Paralympic Games)."

Whoops! So it was actually a 15 per cent reduction in City Hall spending, not GLA-wide spending. And we are only talking about a cut of £12 million, not £500 million.

Those cost-cutting claims aren't looking too credible so far. But hang on what's this from the Assembly's pre-budget report:

"A high-level announcement was made by the Mayor of 15 per cent savings... Our key findings are that the 15 per cent announced was not quite what it seemed, being in fact around 5 per cent once previously planned reductions in expenditure on the elections (and) the removal of planned growth are taken into account."

You what?

"Spending on GLA elections peaks in election years and then falls away immediately following elections.

The previously planned change in expenditure on elections will result in a reduction of £6.2 million in net revenue expenditure between 2008/09 and 2009/10 (there is £400,000 of planned expenditure on the elections in 2009/10, compared to £6.6 million in 2008/09).

This cannot reasonably be described as an efficiency saving or a budget cut – it simply reflects the usual pattern of expenditure on GLA elections."

So well over half of Boris's 'cost cutting drive' wasn't actually a cost cutting drive at all. And the billed £500 million GLA saving, actually amounted to less than a £4 million saving at City Hall.

Oh well, never mind Boris. I guess the place wasn't as 'mired' in waste as you made out.

"It looks very greedy to me. I think that if you are getting paid for three jobs, you should do three jobs and I think that is absolutely impossible. To me this is snouts in the trough and I just find it very unacceptable."

The MPA allowance would have ordinarily gone to the Chairman but under MPA rules it has been diverted to Kit Malthouse instead because the Chairman is now the Mayor.

Under a change in the law, all Assembly Members who are also members of the police authority can now draw a separate allowance.

However, the last Chair of the MPA Len Duvall did not claim any allowance when the law changed in May.

Testing Times

Boris Johnson is said to have asked the MPA to find £18 million pounds worth of savings and at today's meeting Kit Malthouse said that they had been through a 'very testing budget round'.

But with members of the authority today approving a total of £191,610 in extra allowances to themselves, then things are only likely to get more testing still.

"We find ourselves in a situation which is pretty messy" said the last Chairman to the new Mayor. "What assurances can you give to future police commisioners that you aren't out of control."

We were sitting watching Boris Johnson's first appearance as the head of the Metropolitan Police Authority and by any measure this was not the best of starts.

In the audience were members of the Metropolitan Black Police Association who had called for a boycott of the Met, and on the panel were members angered at being bypassed twice in just a few days.

Liberal Democrat Assembly Member Dee Doocey was among them:

"We don't have a problem with the outcome (of Blair's resignation) it is the way in which it was taken. If you do not consult with the MPA on something as important as this then it raises the question of what you will you do next."

Chair of the London Assembly Jennette Arnold agreed:

"Who did you talk to about this? I suspect that you didn't talk to anyone apart from your Deputy." Boris smirked:

"It is true that not everyone was consulted, but it was not the case that nobody was either."

Jenny Jones called for members who had been consulted to put up their hands. No members did.

Before the start of the meeting Boris's press office had announced that an inquiry would be launched into racism in the Met. Members were concerned.

Len Duvall reminded Mayor that it is not for him to establish inquiries but for the MPA as a whole. Boris replied that he hoped no-one there felt put out.

Members of the authority then lined up to criticise the review as being everything from not independent enough, to being "the world's biggest long grass job"

Faced with this opposition Boris quickly agreed to review the review.

The following motion was then put up to the Authority:

“We believe that decisions concerning the confidence of Londoners in their Commissioner need to be taken by the Metropolitan Police Authority, with its cross party and independent membership, reflecting a broad range of Londoners views.”

"That seems eminently sensible to me" replied the Mayor, who quickly raised his hand. Members of the Authority looked back in disbelief.

About Adam Bienkov

Journalist at Politics.co.uk and contributor to MSN News, The Guardian and elsewhere. I also write a London politics blog for Snipe Magazine.
Do you know something that I don't? Feel free to email stories, tip-offs and leaks here and I will do the rest.